Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have claimed to be Jesus


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Merge with List of people who claim to be Jesus Christ. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

List of people who have claimed to be Jesus
Delete, unless of course you include that homeless guy down the street with the tinfoil hat. The list tries to get around this by using the "notability" filter, but that's too open to interpretation in this case. Karm a  fist  05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TheRingess 05:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to BJAODN, then Delete. SycthosTalk 05:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Move which one? The list or the guy with the tinfoil hat? Karm  a  fist  05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, merge with List of people who claim to be Jesus Christ (as has been tagged for a while), and remove the non-notable entries. The list of religious leaders who claim(ed) to be Jesus is significant (cult leaders and such).  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 05:32Z 
 * Delete/Merge this nonsense - the entry about bill gates is not good and telling of this whole list ("no one has been able to verify this") WhiteNight T 05:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per above. Notability is not subject to abuse here; it's measurable in as much as whether or not the person has an article.  If a person has an article, it's already been ruled the person is notable.  The list will only reflect that; that is the purpose of the list, to be an index.  Besides, this is no less encyclopedic than Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities.  CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If the list is to include only people with wikipedia articles, wouldn't a category be more appropriate? --Austrian 19:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Referenceing is v important here which you would not get with a category. --Salix alba (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Quarl.  Oh no  itsJamie  06:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Quarl. That's some nice article formatting! Grandmasterka 08:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per above and submit to extreme verifiability scrutiny. Keep fancy formatting if possible. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids  Expansion Project 08:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both articles, get formatter to help out with styleguides and formatting elsewhere! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Quarl. Smerdis of Tlön 15:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Quarl. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.